As a middle-aged man who's been a feminist for his entire adult life, I've long struggled with the issue of implicit paternalism of male involvement in feminism. This issue is implicit in Kristof and WuDunn's "saving the world's women" premise.

Aside from the obvious you describe—focusing on empowerment rather than "saving"—I think there's a useful framing device available that clarifies thinking and probably positively affects action: making a distinction between opposing an injustice and advocacy for an oppressed group.

It seems to me that there's much less implicit paternalism in the former than there is in the latter. It is everyone's responsibility to oppose injustice; but it is arguably not everyone's responsibility, or right, to advocate for the oppressed. Indeed, it seems to me that it's arguable that only those among the oppressed group have the right to advocate for themselves. Others may advocate for them by invitation only.

When I write and speak about sexism and feminism, as a man I try to always be aware of this distinction. I believe I have every right to be as forceful as I feel necessary in opposing injustice; but, in contrast, I believe that I must tread carefully among any topic that is, or is more like, advocacy for women.

Personally, I think it's unfortunate that "anti-sexism" has been synonymous with "feminism" and, more to the point, that as a practical matter the former only exists as the latter. This is natural and comprehensible because the impetus for women's rights originated among women themselves. It is regrettable, however, because that "anti-sexism" equals "feminism" is indicative of how little there is of male involvement in this issue. Worse, "anti-sexism" has been partly co-opted by the mostly reactionary "men's rights" movement and thus as a political nomenclature matter, framing the fight against sexism as anything other than explicitly as advocacy for women has become an implicit denial of the centrality and severity of the oppression of women.

As women form almost the totality of the feminist/anti-sexism movement, these issues are mostly not apparent because, obviously, for women anti-sexism and feminism are functionally equivalent.

However, with regard to the oppression of women outside of the wealth Western nations, I think these issues rise to the surface. It is our role, our responsibility, to fight the injustice of worldwide sexism and the specific oppression of women. It is not our role or responsibility to "save" the world's women, nor to advocate on their behalf unless invited to do so.

This response is pretty thin gruel, I think. The New York Times published a bold, important article highlight a huge issue that is poorly understood by almost everyone. The recommendations in the article are pragmatic and the policy prescriptions are humble and sensible.

This is from the last paragraph in the article:

"There are many metaphors for the role of foreign assistance. For our part, we like to think of aid as a kind of lubricant, a few drops of oil in the crankcase of the developing world, so that gears move freely again on their own."

That seems to me to be very much in agreement with what's being said here.

Also, it seems very unlikely that Kristoff and WuDunn wrote the article's title. I definitely thought they took an empowerment approach in the entire issue -- from education to microfinance, it was about providing women what they needed to succeed, not about swooping in to save women. It's really not about the headline.

implies that we have a certain ideal of how developing countries should operate, and we want to shape them according to that ideal.

But we DO have an ideal of how developing countries should operate, and not hijacking our airliners to crash them into buildings is high on that agenda. What purpose would it serve to pretend otherwise?

In the specific case of people who are trying to kill us, I don't think it's paternalistic to demand that they stop.

Another item on our agenda for developing countries is that they improve their treatment of disadvantaged members of their own societies, often including ethnic minorities and women. Should we stop trying to push that agenda, too?

On certain subjects the importance of the agenda itself exceeds the drawback of being, or being perceived as, pushy about it. If that means we have to save one generation of women before we can empower the next generation to save themselves, so be it.

Isn't it exactly this sort of semantic quibbling and bickering that both prevents actual action from being taken and turns of the folks with pockets deep enough to help out?

I remember post-Katrina, I could almost literally see dollars walking out the door every time some well-meaning person said "Don't call them refugees. It demeans them."

I did not read the articles, but am astounded by the comments made. American society has been brain washed into thinking that women have been oppressed since time immemorial. I am middle aged, and while growing up, I constantly heard about "Ladies first", "Women and children get saved first", "Support an ex-wife i the manner accustomed" and blah, blah, blah. I was also exposed to teachers abusing boys through physical punishment. Not once did I witness the same abuse toward girls. The feminist movement is a sham, and it has been able to buffalo even our brightest citizens.

Empowering women will not stop terrorism, it inflames it because it does nothing to solve the root cause of the problem.

As a military officer, I have worked in many 3rd world countries. I am worked with feminist organizations that set up Women's Clinics and Women's School that will not teach boys to read and write or treat men and boys when they are sick. These people that run these operations are FeMEnist fundamentalist. I put them side by side the Christian missionaries that will only help you if you convert to them and becoming their unpaid labor camp slave.

As an American, I am ashamed of this craziness we export to other countries. It causes resentment and discontentment when you only treat women. I know the feminist UN says "treat the women and she will take care of the village." This is such bullshit! When she loses the husband, no more hard, heavy work that pays can be earned. Look at the male to female population in these worn-torn areas more women than men and they are still worse off because they have no men to help them.

I believe feminism is doing more harm than good to 3rd world countries as well as our own. Feminist are greedy and selfish women that only think about themselves. Just like the stats of 90% of all rapists come from single mother homes. The majority of all terrorists come from single-mother homes. The feminist want you to believe children raised by single-mothers are not violent and more passive than children that grow up in two parent homes.

I am not against equality. I am against the feminist that push an agenda that makes them more powerful than men. Women have much more benefits than men and don't have the stressers and responsibilities that men have in society. Society protects and puts women first and this needs to be changed if we are to have true equality and women are to be treated as equals if they stop seeking to be treated better than men.

To give you an idea of how misguided -- and dangerous -- is the singular focus on women as oppressed, I offer:

The Greater Outrage for Female Victims of Governments’ Brutality Perpetuates Risk to Both Sexes
http://battlinbog.blog-city.com/governments_violence_against_the_sexes.htm